1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Actually, they probably do come for the culture. And also the cuisine is far superior. And these days, they might even come for the climate
Other pull factors would be not being murdered for being the wrong race/religion/sex etc.
So how come they elected a Japanese and NOT a mixed race OR indigenous President?
For much the same reason that Louisiana elected Bobby Jindal as Governor. Ditto Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Both Republicans of South Asian heritage
Though voters in South Carolina have elected a Black Republican as US Senator. And have no trouble imagining that Louisiana could elect a Black senator or governor, most likely Republican but possibly Democratic.
Republicans have some interesting candidates of color up & down the ballot in 2022 midterms, including some who were/are being defeated, but ran good races.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Norway has laws against race based hate crime not race based violence like England and Wales
The definitions and rates come from the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, part of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Hence the reason they are directly comparable as they use the same definitions for each country.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Actually, they probably do come for the culture. And also the cuisine is far superior. And these days, they might even come for the climate
Other pull factors would be not being murdered for being the wrong race/religion/sex etc.
Which, ironically, also forms a solid basis on which to claim asylum.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
.... as do the Republicans?
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
Trump and another Republican on the ballot? How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then? 470 more likely.
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
Are you advocating an election steal? That's a bit naughty and not at all democratic.
As 2020 showed the constitution allows the Congress to object to the EC results but there was no GOP majority to do so then, although a majority of GOP House representatives did vote to object to the EC results
But you seem to be suggesting such an assault on the democratic will would be OK so long as the losing Presidential candidate had enough votes in Congress to do something very, very bad, and constitutionally dangerous. Do Epping Forest Conservative Association concur with your anti- democracy ramblings?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Actually, they probably do come for the culture. And also the cuisine is far superior. And these days, they might even come for the climate
Other pull factors would be not being murdered for being the wrong race/religion/sex etc.
Which, ironically, also forms a solid basis on which to claim asylum.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Tuesday's explosion of fire and fury when the Orange One announces he is running again will be one for the ages and scare of so many voters.
Like Boris Johnson, Donald Trump remains a great lay.
.... as do the Republicans?
Yes, although I may do a thread next weekend on why Trump running as a third party candidate then the GOP wins the White House in 2024.
Things get very interesting if no candidates gets to 270 electoral college votes and how congress votes to sort out that mess.
Trump and another Republican on the ballot? How in holy hell do the Dems not get 270 then? 470 more likely.
I know 470 is more likely, but use 1968 as a base line, with a highly partisan and election stealing GOP there's a narrow window for the GOP to take the White House.
In 1968 Wallace was a Democrat and segregationist and so cost Humphrey Southern votes and states not Nixon. Trump running though would mainly cost the GOP votes as Perot did in 1992.
The GOP need to win the Senate as well as the House to have any chance of overturning the EC results too
Are you advocating an election steal? That's a bit naughty and not at all democratic.
As 2020 showed the constitution allows the Congress to object to the EC results but there was no GOP majority to do so then, although a majority of GOP House representatives did vote to object to the EC results
But you seem to be suggesting such an assault on the democratic will would be OK so long as the losing Presidential candidate had enough votes in Congress to do something very, very bad, and constitutionally dangerous. Do Epping Forest Conservative Association concur with your anti- democracy ramblings?
There is nothing in the US constitution to stop it, I didn't say I supported it just that it was constitutional as Congress has to confirm the EC votes and can object under Federal law to EC votes from states
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Given how Woke the UK police service is now virtually every other crime is classed as a hate crime.
Maybe only now are the Norwegian police starting to become as Woke as our police though still far from ours
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
It seems open to rampant abuse.
How so?
It seems that this is a cumbersome - but necessary - way to validate mail in ballots. You compare the signature to that which is on-file, and if there's a mismatch you get people to come in with photo ID and to confirm (and update) the signature on record.
It also means that if you are Joe Schmo and didn't vote, and receive a message about your signature not matching, then by reporting this, fraud is able to be identified.
Because it's a political process, not an actual verification process.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Let's hope we don't get the pillock who went splat on the scooter when La Sturgeon retires.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
I don't see SNP MSPs electing a non white FM anytime soon however despite the SNP majority with the Greens at Holyrood
Is that any concern of ours? It’s the old interesting to the public vs in the interests of the public. See current stories around Arab for an example of the latter.
At a time of cost of living crisis?
It happened 12 years ago.
In the rubble of the GFC?
Maybe it caused it? It was, after all, Labours fault.*
*According to Tories.
They had been in government for a decade. I suppose the 'global' part suggests it was hardly their fault entirely. But the reality is that the banking system nearly collapsed because it had virtually no capital. The government can't deny responsibility for that.
True. But the Tories were for even lighter touch regulation. It was fiendishly good politics to somehow badge it as being due to "Labour overspending" - something that stuck and gave the Tories an electoral advantage on the economy that persisted for 14 years and took the superhuman efforts of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng to eliminate and reverse. If "the Tories crashed the economy and working people are paying the price" similarly now takes hold and dooms them to a harrowing election defeat that will be only right and proper.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Given how Woke the UK police service is now virtually every other crime is classed as a hate crime.
125,000 out of 5.8 million in 2021. Hardly 'every other crime'. 2% in fact.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Actually, they probably do come for the culture. And also the cuisine is far superior. And these days, they might even come for the climate
Other pull factors would be not being murdered for being the wrong race/religion/sex etc.
Which, ironically, also forms a solid basis on which to claim asylum.
When the jolly old Raj invaded and stole the whole of bloody India and for that matter Australia and north America do you think they did it by weaseling their way round the asylum legislation? I think that is where the bulk of the irony is.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Given how Woke the UK police service is now virtually every other crime is classed as a hate crime.
Maybe only now are the Norwegian police starting to become as Woke as our police though still for from ours
I can only conclude that you must have a lot of East End gangster families in the Epping Tory Party if you think it is "hate" to be prosecuted for arson, speeding, burgary, theft etc.
Edit: which, for the avoidance iof doubt, is a nonsense conclusion - from your nonsense premise.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Given how Woke the UK police service is now virtually every other crime is classed as a hate crime.
Maybe only now are the Norwegian police starting to become as Woke as our police though still for from ours
I can only conclude that you must have a lot of East End gangster families in the Epping Tory Party if you think it is "hate" to be prosecuted for arson, speeding, burgary, theft etc.
Where else are Easy End Gangster Families Made Good meant to go?
It's a long time since the Kray Twins wouldn't have turned bad if only they had moved to Romford.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
Actually, they probably do come for the culture. And also the cuisine is far superior. And these days, they might even come for the climate
Other pull factors would be not being murdered for being the wrong race/religion/sex etc.
Which, ironically, also forms a solid basis on which to claim asylum.
When the jolly old Raj invaded and stole the whole of bloody India and for that matter Australia and north America do you think they did it by weaseling their way round the asylum legislation? I think that is where the bulk of the irony is.
Who cares? The whole of human history, up till a very short time ago, was about one group stealing the land/property of another group. You and I are descended both from people who perpetrated horrid atrocities, and from people who suffered horrid atrocities.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever have in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Nope. Those attacks were not spawned by the integrationist policy and you just make yourself look very stupid for trying to claim it.
There were 125,000 race hate crimes recorded in England and Wales in 2020. There were 744 in Norway. And before you ask, their definition for recording racist crimes is basically the same as the UK.
Number of hate crimes in Norway doubled recently so suggests prior under reporting
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Given how Woke the UK police service is now virtually every other crime is classed as a hate crime.
Maybe only now are the Norwegian police starting to become as Woke as our police though still for from ours
I can only conclude that you must have a lot of East End gangster families in the Epping Tory Party if you think it is "hate" to be prosecuted for arson, speeding, burgary, theft etc.
Where else are Easy End Gangster Families Made Good meant to go?
It's a long time since the Kray Twins wouldn't have turned bad if only they had moved to Romford.
Dunno. HYUFD seems to have a very broad idea of what 'made good' means, too, which doesn't help.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
No, you would never know it because they adopt Norwegian customs, all speak the language and are not allowed to live in ghettos. They become Norwegians. Skin colour is immaterial.
Yet 2/3 of Norwegians would disapprove if one of their children married a Muslim
As an aside, I followed that (rather old) link (that referred to an even earlier study), and discovered the Norwegians have a Government Department whose task is encouraging the integration of immigrants into Norwegian society:
It is the point I have been making throughout the whole 'discussion' with HYUFD. A successful integration policy such as that practiced in Norway negates much of the perceived problems around immigration. Of course, HYUFD hates this idea so does everything he can to undermine it.
This 'successful' integration policy being the one that has produced a far worse far right terrorist attack than we have ever had in the UK? An Islamist terrorist attack which killed 2 this year in Norway, worse than any Islamist terrorist attacks in the UK this year? A country where most of the population do not want their children marrying Muslim immigrants? Plus a country which still has a white PM unlike the UK with our Hindu PM?
Breivik was a lone nutter. What he did isn't evidence of a failed immigration policy.
She can do no wrong from my point of view; at least she belongs to the human race and after the Sharon Stone episode she became more noticeable as being nicely flirty just by existing.
But I enjoyed this bit of the Sky piece:
"I had my boob job on my 30th birthday," she told the Financial Times.
as I recall the days when FT people would have no idea what a boob job was.
A story that gets people thinking about Rayner's tits sounds like smart politics.
For Labour.
Why Tories would want to make them an issue, perhaps yet another sign of CUP political dementia?
Yes, that's what I meant. It is Rayner herself who has put the story out there.
That's NOT what I meant
Or rather, think that Rayner mentioning her boob job is NOT a political demerit in the slightest.
What IS dumb, is for Tories to start bringing it up, in tones of ersatz outrage.
Angela's self-"expose" shows that top Labourite is a regular person who is with it (if the kids are still saying that!) but not pushing the envelope.
Any tabloid appeal to demographics NOT tuned into PB & etc. being a PLUS.
Opposite is true of Conservative efforts to turn this into The Scarlet Letter.
Unless they think old, dumb, misogynist AND hypocritical is a good look?
Here in WA State, waiting for more results today from half dozen of the larger counties, including King.
As of now number of ballots counted = 2.5 million, estimated remaining = 462k, of which 216k are in King.
Two major statewide races already decided, with Democrats Patty Murray re-elected US Senator with 56.6%, and Steve Hobbs confirmed as WA Secretary of State.
For US House, nine of ten incumbents running for re-election re-elected handily: six Democrats, including top GOP target Kim Schrier; and two Republicans, including Dan Newhouse who voted to impeach Trump after attack on US Capitol.
Lone undecided US House seat is CD03 where another Republican incumbent was defeated in primary after voting for Trump impeachment, but where Democrat is currently leading MAGA0-maniac Republican.
Clark County, which is about 60% of the district, is counting today, and scheduled to report in about two & a half hours.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
I don't see SNP MSPs electing a non white FM anytime soon however despite the SNP majority with the Greens at Holyrood
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
Yes but HW endorsed Reagan and became his VP and Clinton endorsed Obama and became his Secretary of State, neither ran as Independents
Indeed and we can see parties unifying after seemingly divisive leadership battles - the Conservative Party is a fine example of that.
The question is whether, if he loses to DeSantis, whether you think Trump will offer his support and the support of his constituency to DeSantis or whether personal animosity or pride will force him to an independent run.
Trump is not a party man as you are or I was - he is his own man who arguably hijacked a party for his own ends. Do you think he is a Republican at heart? No, he's Trump at heart.
I struggle to think of an example of a former President who runs again, loses the nomination and then agrees to serve in the winner's Cabinet - Trump wouldn't do it - or do you think he would?
I agree, Trump is far more likely to run as an Independent than serve in a De Santis cabinet
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
I don't see SNP MSPs electing a non white FM anytime soon however despite the SNP majority with the Greens at Holyrood
Scottish Labour have Anas Sarwar at least.
[edited on checking who's still MSPs]
Add Mr Choudhury.
SNP have Mr Yousaf and Ms Stewart too. And the Tories have Dr Gulhane and Ms Gosal. Not sure about the LDs and the Greens - the former at least are too statistically small a sample anyway.
I haven't been posting much recently mainly as I have been busy with DIY jobs and certainly not because I am disenchanted with PB which continues to be an excellent forum even if some members have been banned
However, just catching up I note @HYUFD is being embarrassing again
It is true with PB that somethings never change
One day, the penny will drop that he’s actually an exemplar, and then you can join the many of us already in the sensible centre.
Even though I should have known it, I can avoid embarrassment by being 15 years younger than Just One Look in its earliest form
I'm very glad you liked the Bonnie Raitt live recording. I've listened to it more than anything else since I found it. It's cool how well this ginger bird has utterly mastered the Blues by the age of twenty-one
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Culinary's legendary clout in Nevada politics does NOT come from cooking, but rather as a union actually capable of organizing and mobilizing it's members at election times.
They are also part of what little bedrock there is, for workers in massive Las Vegas hospitality industry, and thus the Nevada middle class.
And yes, 5k is a big number under the circumstances.
Other side does get to chase sigs & help cure ballots also, but not sure what kind of organization they can deploy?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
Isn't the more accurate analogy the 1912 US election? As with all analogies, it doesn't stand up to close inspection but you have the ex-President challenging his party's candidate.
Biden will think all his Christmases have come early if Trump splits the GOP and storms off to run as an Independent against DeSantis - I think that prospect is more likely now than it was seven days ago.
To break my own analogy (as you have to sometimes) we drift towards 1992 with Trump a quasi-Perot figure. Let's say he polls 25%, DeSantis 30% and Biden 45% - that'll be a Biden landslide just as it was for Clinton in 1992 and for Wilson in 1912.
As we know over here, FPTP punishes parties which divide or split.
To get to that, we need to see if both Trump and DeSantis fetch up to Iowa next winter to contest the caucus and then the primaries. We've seen hard fought primaries between candidates of the same party (Reagan vs HW Bush, Obama vs Clinton) which have apparently torn parties in two but the party has recovered to win the election.
Yes but HW endorsed Reagan and became his VP and Clinton endorsed Obama and became his Secretary of State, neither ran as Independents
Indeed and we can see parties unifying after seemingly divisive leadership battles - the Conservative Party is a fine example of that.
The question is whether, if he loses to DeSantis, whether you think Trump will offer his support and the support of his constituency to DeSantis or whether personal animosity or pride will force him to an independent run.
Trump is not a party man as you are or I was - he is his own man who arguably hijacked a party for his own ends. Do you think he is a Republican at heart? No, he's Trump at heart.
I struggle to think of an example of a former President who runs again, loses the nomination and then agrees to serve in the winner's Cabinet - Trump wouldn't do it - or do you think he would?
I agree, Trump is far more likely to run as an Independent than serve in a De Santis cabinet
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
Even though I should have known it, I can avoid embarrassment by being 15 years younger than Just One Look in its earliest form
I'm very glad you liked the Bonnie Raitt live recording. I've listened to it more than anything else since I found it. It's cool how well this ginger bird has utterly mastered the Blues by the age of twenty-one
Forgot to mention when you were having this discussion a day or so ago that I was in London on Sunday to see the Tedeschi Trucks band. Bloody awesome. Not least because they did the John Prine song Angel from Montgomery which was so beautifully covered by Bonnie Raitt many years ago.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
I don't see SNP MSPs electing a non white FM anytime soon however despite the SNP majority with the Greens at Holyrood
They're not electing *any* new FM in a hurry, whether pink, brown, green with turquoise spots, or from the planet Vogon. Unlike Tories and PMs.
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Culinary's legendary clout in Nevada politics does NOT come from cooking, but rather as a union actually capable of organizing and mobilizing it's members at election times.
They are also part of what little bedrock there is, for workers in massive Las Vegas hospitality industry, and thus the Nevada middle class.
And yes, 5k is a big number under the circumstances.
Other side does get to chase sigs & help cure ballots also, but not sure what kind of organization they can deploy?
Nevada GOP state party is under the control of a lunatic and has been for a decade plus now. In 2012 the National GOP bypassed the local party and setup their own operation.
Same has now happened to the Dems, a hardcore Bernie supporter won the state chair and the defeated Harry Reid machine have setup a parallel organisation.
Culinary Workers have gone with the new organisation.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
All nations lionise their great military leaders. That's just a fact of life. And, that's as true of non-Europeans as it is of Europeans. But, gradually, the view has taken hold that right of conquest is not a good basis upon which to found one's rule.
Here in WA State, waiting for more results today from half dozen of the larger counties, including King.
As of now number of ballots counted = 2.5 million, estimated remaining = 462k, of which 216k are in King.
Two major statewide races already decided, with Democrats Patty Murray re-elected US Senator with 56.6%, and Steve Hobbs confirmed as WA Secretary of State.
For US House, nine of ten incumbents running for re-election re-elected handily: six Democrats, including top GOP target Kim Schrier; and two Republicans, including Dan Newhouse who voted to impeach Trump after attack on US Capitol.
Lone undecided US House seat is CD03 where another Republican incumbent was defeated in primary after voting for Trump impeachment, but where Democrat is currently leading MAGA0-maniac Republican.
Clark County, which is about 60% of the district, is counting today, and scheduled to report in about two & a half hours.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Complete honesty seems to be a bit unreaslitic as an aim, especially as its not as though revisionism of previous narratives is done entirely without political aims, and at worst is also done without any real context. I'll settle for not ignoring the bad bits without self flaggellating about it, as a goal.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
I don't see SNP MSPs electing a non white FM anytime soon however despite the SNP majority with the Greens at Holyrood
Scottish Labour have Anas Sarwar at least.
[edited on checking who's still MSPs]
Add Mr Choudhury.
SNP have Mr Yousaf and Ms Stewart too. And the Tories have Dr Gulhane and Ms Gosal. Not sure about the LDs and the Greens - the former at least are too statistically small a sample anyway.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that the once and future Head of Government of Republic of Ireland is Leo Varadkar.
He was Taoiseach, is now Tánaiste in grand coalition government under power sharing arrangement that will again make him Taoiseach (unless the government falls or something) next month.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
I'm actually reading a primary source History of the Indian Empire at the moment written in 1859, just after the mutiny. Original screenshot below for those that don't believe me. The handwritten dedication inside it is from 1860. I paid £60 for it at an antique bookshop.
What's surprised me so far is how reasoned it is, even for its time. Race is barely mentioned at all - except for the word "natives" - and its description of its subjects largely focused on religious tensions.
Its central argument is that Britain owes a debt to India and a duty as a ruler, and the argument that "what was won by the sword must be kept by the sword" is false and wicked; Britain cannot be indifferent to its Indian subjects, and it cannot let the experience of the recent mutiny blot out the debt it owes to them to fix its judicial system, land tenure system, tariffs and currency. If it does not, Britain does not deserve to retain its role. And it appeals to Parliament to do this.
It's clear that the author's deep Christianity plays a strong part in his views. But I doubt he was a lone voice, and this is quite unlike how debate would be conducted (if at all) in nations like China or Russia at the time.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
All nations lionise their great military leaders. That's just a fact of life. And, that's as true of non-Europeans as it is of Europeans. But, gradually, the view has taken hold that right of conquest is not a good basis upon which to found one's rule.
As 1066 and all That had it: The Roman Conquest was, however, a *Good Thing*, since the Britons were only natives at the time.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Here in WA State, waiting for more results today from half dozen of the larger counties, including King.
As of now number of ballots counted = 2.5 million, estimated remaining = 462k, of which 216k are in King.
Two major statewide races already decided, with Democrats Patty Murray re-elected US Senator with 56.6%, and Steve Hobbs confirmed as WA Secretary of State.
For US House, nine of ten incumbents running for re-election re-elected handily: six Democrats, including top GOP target Kim Schrier; and two Republicans, including Dan Newhouse who voted to impeach Trump after attack on US Capitol.
Lone undecided US House seat is CD03 where another Republican incumbent was defeated in primary after voting for Trump impeachment, but where Democrat is currently leading MAGA0-maniac Republican.
Clark County, which is about 60% of the district, is counting today, and scheduled to report in about two & a half hours.
Not another bloody Clark County?!
Yes! Both named for William Clark, but NOT the same one.
> Clark County, Nevada named for copper baron & Montana US Senator William Clark
> Clark County, Washington named for co-leader of the Lewis & Clark Expedition
To make things more confusing, county seat of Clark Co. WA = Vancouver, WA. A town which objected vociferously but ineffectively when it's name (or rather that of British admiral) was hijacked (or liberated depending on point of view) by Vancouver, BC.
Vancouver, WA is also site of historic Hudson Bay Company > US Army Fort Vancouver on beautify setting above the truly mighty Columbia River.
Generals of the Army (highest rank) who spent quality time at Fort Vancouver = Ulysses S. Grant and George C. Marshall.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
All nations lionise their great military leaders. That's just a fact of life. And, that's as true of non-Europeans as it is of Europeans. But, gradually, the view has taken hold that right of conquest is not a good basis upon which to found one's rule.
As 1066 and all That had it: The Roman Conquest was, however, a *Good Thing*, since the Britons were only natives at the time.
Sure, we've got it in the neck from one wave of conquerors after another. Some Victorian nationalists loved to yammer about "the Norman Yoke", but again, who cares?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
Today, we do anything but: we condemn them as ignorant, wicked and stupid and endow ourselves with a sanctimonious and self-satisfied superiority as we virtue-signal our enlightenment against them.
It's remarkably arrogant and, ironically, very ignorant.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Sweden meanwhile has just given the far right Sweden Democrats 20% of the vote and the balance of power in the Swedish Parliament
A stupid example, even for you. One lunatic does not define the attitude of a whole country. Indeed at the time of the attacks I said it was ridiculous given how well integrated the immigrant population was into Norwegian society.
And it's not as if the terrorist was a foreigner anyway!
As usual HYUFD doesn't care about facts or logic. That is exemplified by his using the example of Sweden when the whole point of my posting was that it is specifically the Norwegian system of dealing with integration which allows them to have such an effective immigration policy.
24% of Sweden now are non native Swedes while only 17% of Norway are non native Norwegians
Again, given I was comparing Norway with UK and didn't once mention Sweden, your point is... pointless.
Oh and 25% of Norwegians are now first or second generation immigrants. Though you would never know it if you spent time there.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and argue purely on the basis of your own anti-immigrant bigotry. The idea that it is possible for a country to have a successful policy that allows large scale immigration without causing all the problems you expect (and I suspect want) is anathema to your world view.
If you would never know it if you spent time there presumably that can only be because the ethnic non Caucasians are kept discreetly out of view, which is not necessarily something to celebrate
All this yay! Diversity! stuff is a bit naive. The stowaway immigrants of the 1950s would probably have been better off if we had left their ancestors in West Africa. Similarly nobody leaves the subcontinent for the UK for the weather, the cuisine or the culture, they come because after centuries of abusive colonisation this is where the money is.
The next generation of two of them has also made it to UK PM.
I don't see Norway electing a non white PM anytime soon though
I don’t see the UK ‘electing’ one anytime soon either.
Well at least the UK has a non white PM, no sign of Scotland electing a non white FM anytime soon, certainly from the SNP even if the leader of SLAB is non white
Electing was your word not mine, chief. You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Yes, elected by Tory MPs
Who are only a tiny amoral, incompetent, self seeking part of the UK.
I don't see SNP MSPs electing a non white FM anytime soon however despite the SNP majority with the Greens at Holyrood
Scottish Labour have Anas Sarwar at least.
[edited on checking who's still MSPs]
Add Mr Choudhury.
SNP have Mr Yousaf and Ms Stewart too. And the Tories have Dr Gulhane and Ms Gosal. Not sure about the LDs and the Greens - the former at least are too statistically small a sample anyway.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that the once and future Head of Government of Republic of Ireland is Leo Varadkar.
He was Taoiseach, is now Tánaiste in grand coalition government under power sharing arrangement that will again make him Taoiseach (unless the government falls or something) next month.
Unlike the Israeli politicians they seem able to make the old power sharing thing work!
For Nevada watchers - Clark County has 'cured' 7000 of its 14000 questioned ballots. That is probably (more) bad news for Mr Laxalt.
Both campaigns & their allies will be working the lists of ballots with missing & mismatched signatures, and matching them with their own voter files and IDs.
Plus counties (see below) are already contacting voters and telling them how to cure their challenged ballots. IF they want to and/or can.
Process - official & campaign signature chases - ongoing in all NV counties, not just Clark.
As far as which kinds & types of voters are more likely to screw up, by not signing or with mismatched sigs (more problematic) some are older, but also younger, immigrants but also kids at college whose mothers' signed their envelopes for them.
All these factors make it difficult to predict with any certainty which side likely to benefit.
PLUS process is NOT limited to Nevada, but happens in many states. My own experience with signature chasing goes back over twenty years.
In general, side that is better organized tends to harvest more votes for it's own side. However, whole thing is a crap shoot. As you can NOT affect how anyone is gonna vote - the vote is whatever is (or is not) marked on the ballot being held at the election office.
All you can do is persuade & help them cure their ballot. AND be sensitive when a voter you are leaning on, MAY be trying to tell you (without actually saying it) that they did NOT vote for your candidate!
An art NOT a science!
Jon Ralston says the Culinary Union has reported curing (should that be cooking?) 5,000 ballots, which he considers a BIG number, which will lean heavily to the Democrats.
Culinary's legendary clout in Nevada politics does NOT come from cooking, but rather as a union actually capable of organizing and mobilizing it's members at election times.
They are also part of what little bedrock there is, for workers in massive Las Vegas hospitality industry, and thus the Nevada middle class.
And yes, 5k is a big number under the circumstances.
Other side does get to chase sigs & help cure ballots also, but not sure what kind of organization they can deploy?
Even though I should have known it, I can avoid embarrassment by being 15 years younger than Just One Look in its earliest form
I'm very glad you liked the Bonnie Raitt live recording. I've listened to it more than anything else since I found it. It's cool how well this ginger bird has utterly mastered the Blues by the age of twenty-one
Forgot to mention when you were having this discussion a day or so ago that I was in London on Sunday to see the Tedeschi Trucks band. Bloody awesome. Not least because they did the John Prine song Angel from Montgomery which was so beautifully covered by Bonnie Raitt many years ago.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Even accepting that there are some good reasons close american elections can take longer than we eager watchers would like, if the ones there are that much slower than even anywhere else in the country, that does suggest that is unjustified.
Here in WA State, waiting for more results today from half dozen of the larger counties, including King.
As of now number of ballots counted = 2.5 million, estimated remaining = 462k, of which 216k are in King.
Two major statewide races already decided, with Democrats Patty Murray re-elected US Senator with 56.6%, and Steve Hobbs confirmed as WA Secretary of State.
For US House, nine of ten incumbents running for re-election re-elected handily: six Democrats, including top GOP target Kim Schrier; and two Republicans, including Dan Newhouse who voted to impeach Trump after attack on US Capitol.
Lone undecided US House seat is CD03 where another Republican incumbent was defeated in primary after voting for Trump impeachment, but where Democrat is currently leading MAGA0-maniac Republican.
Clark County, which is about 60% of the district, is counting today, and scheduled to report in about two & a half hours.
Not another bloody Clark County?!
I think in punishment for having boring congressional district numbering, all countries should be likewise numbered and not named.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Are you trying to stop CR sleeping tonight?
Of course not, I hope Moon Rabbit has managed to dig herself out of the Nevada hole too. Just that this mid term looks far, far closer than we anticipated on Tuesday night. That the House hasn't been called for the GOP is an indictment of their stupid policies and MAGA tendencies. It may actually be the case that women voters have made the difference here between a slim Dem majority in the House and Senate as may end up being the case and a what was looking like a decisive Republican victory in the House and a slim Senate majority.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Are you trying to stop CR sleeping tonight?
'Whom the gods would destroy, they make chase losses on dodgy American elections?'
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
So how come they elected a Japanese and NOT a mixed race OR indigenous President?
For much the same reason that Louisiana elected Bobby Jindal as Governor. Ditto Nikki Haley in South Carolina. Both Republicans of South Asian heritage
Though voters in South Carolina have elected a Black Republican as US Senator. And have no trouble imagining that Louisiana could elect a Black senator or governor, most likely Republican but possibly Democratic.
Republicans have some interesting candidates of color up & down the ballot in 2022 midterms, including some who were/are being defeated, but ran good races.
Who can forget Larry Elder in California: “The Black face of white supremacy”, as the LA Times called him.
Here in WA State, waiting for more results today from half dozen of the larger counties, including King.
As of now number of ballots counted = 2.5 million, estimated remaining = 462k, of which 216k are in King.
Two major statewide races already decided, with Democrats Patty Murray re-elected US Senator with 56.6%, and Steve Hobbs confirmed as WA Secretary of State.
For US House, nine of ten incumbents running for re-election re-elected handily: six Democrats, including top GOP target Kim Schrier; and two Republicans, including Dan Newhouse who voted to impeach Trump after attack on US Capitol.
Lone undecided US House seat is CD03 where another Republican incumbent was defeated in primary after voting for Trump impeachment, but where Democrat is currently leading MAGA0-maniac Republican.
Clark County, which is about 60% of the district, is counting today, and scheduled to report in about two & a half hours.
Not another bloody Clark County?!
I think in punishment for having boring congressional district numbering, all countries should be likewise numbered and not named.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
I think the chance of the Democrats finishing on 218 seats is about 1%. It depends on absolutely everything breaking their way.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
Are you trying to stop CR sleeping tonight?
Yeah. Helpful.
How deep in the shit are you?
You don't want to know.
Enough bags of sand, that you don’t need to worry about your house flooding?
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
I've just finished reading Marc Morris The Anglo Saxons: History of the beginnings of England.
I was shocked to read that huge numbers of English were shipped off by the Vikings via eastern european intermediaries to Middle East slave markets in the 9th and 10th centuries.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
Interestingly in the stories set in roman times it seems to me authors seem less concerned with, for instance, making the characters not be supportive of slavery. Usually its more that they are not excessively cruel to their own slaves and might find the more brutal parts distasteful.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
I think the chance of the Democrats finishing on 218 seats is about 1%. It depends on absolutely everything breaking their way.
No, have a look through the the still to declare races, the proportion of votes still to be counted and which districts aren't reported yet. Everything is breaking for the Dems right now. The late blue wave has arrived.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
All nations lionise their great military leaders. That's just a fact of life. And, that's as true of non-Europeans as it is of Europeans. But, gradually, the view has taken hold that right of conquest is not a good basis upon which to found one's rule.
Yes. But I meant more generally about our colonialism. I realize we aren't unique in having such a history but it's quite recent and it is ours - hence of most relevance to us - and we were massive in the imperial exploitation space, with correspondingly deep legacy. I think we tend to twist and strain to avoid admitting that the legacy is overwhelmingly negative on the people and places colonized.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
I think the chance of the Democrats finishing on 218 seats is about 1%. It depends on absolutely everything breaking their way.
No, have a look through the the still to declare races, the proportion of votes still to be counted and which districts aren't reported yet. Everything is breaking for the Dems right now. The late blue wave has arrived.
Yes, I've been through them. They really are not breaking the way you think they are.
I also wonder if the pre election narrative had been motivating Den voters to keep hold of the House rather than try and get them to vote for damage limitation whether that would have added that extra push to get them over the line. The US media did the Dems no favours by making setting the agenda as a almost certain GOP majority in the House.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
I think the chance of the Democrats finishing on 218 seats is about 1%. It depends on absolutely everything breaking their way.
No, have a look through the the still to declare races, the proportion of votes still to be counted and which districts aren't reported yet. Everything is breaking for the Dems right now. The late blue wave has arrived.
If the Dems do "2018 redux electric boogaloo revenge of the Dems" I will laugh and laugh and laugh even though it will cost me.
2018 Wednesday Morning: Dems are total failures. 2018 Sunday: Oops, largest Dem gain of seats in quarter of a century, quick need to rewrite all those op-eds about how the Dems are out of touch with ordinary Americans.
I haven't been posting much recently mainly as I have been busy with DIY jobs and certainly not because I am disenchanted with PB which continues to be an excellent forum even if some members have been banned
However, just catching up I note @HYUFD is being embarrassing again
It is true with PB that somethings never change
One day, the penny will drop that he’s actually an exemplar, and then you can join the many of us already in the sensible centre.
Yes I don't find Hy a particularly unusual tory. His smorgasbord of polling data is unusual but not his beliefs and values.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
I think the chance of the Democrats finishing on 218 seats is about 1%. It depends on absolutely everything breaking their way.
No, have a look through the the still to declare races, the proportion of votes still to be counted and which districts aren't reported yet. Everything is breaking for the Dems right now. The late blue wave has arrived.
Yes, I've been through them. They really are not breaking the way you think they are.
"It's possible #CA13 (Modesto) and #WA03 (Vancouver) lean slightly towards Ds at this point, and #CA41 (Riverside County) might lean ever-so-slightly towards Rs.
But #AZ01 (Scottsdale), #AZ06 (Tucson) and #CA22 (Bakersfield) are the toughest to divine at the moment."
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
I've just finished reading Marc Morris The Anglo Saxons: History of the beginnings of England.
I was shocked to read that huge numbers of English were shipped off by the Vikings via eastern european intermediaries to Middle East slave markets in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Vast numbers.
I demand reparations from Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
I've just finished reading Marc Morris The Anglo Saxons: History of the beginnings of England.
I was shocked to read that huge numbers of English were shipped off by the Vikings via eastern european intermediaries to Middle East slave markets in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Vast numbers.
I demand reparations from Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Some of those California house seats are at less than 50% counted. Completely ridiculous. I had a cursory look through some and I think we may be heading for 218-217 with either party now able to get a 1 seat majority. I think I'd price it at 60/40 in favour of the GOP to get over the finishing line but that 4/10 chance could very easily happen and the Dems may hold the onto the House.
I think the chance of the Democrats finishing on 218 seats is about 1%. It depends on absolutely everything breaking their way.
No, have a look through the the still to declare races, the proportion of votes still to be counted and which districts aren't reported yet. Everything is breaking for the Dems right now. The late blue wave has arrived.
Yes, I've been through them. They really are not breaking the way you think they are.
"It's possible #CA13 (Modesto) and #WA03 (Vancouver) lean slightly towards Ds at this point, and #CA41 (Riverside County) might lean ever-so-slightly towards Rs.
But #AZ01 (Scottsdale), #AZ06 (Tucson) and #CA22 (Bakersfield) are the toughest to divine at the moment."
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
All nations lionise their great military leaders. That's just a fact of life. And, that's as true of non-Europeans as it is of Europeans. But, gradually, the view has taken hold that right of conquest is not a good basis upon which to found one's rule.
Yes. But I meant more generally about our colonialism. I realize we aren't unique in having such a history but it's quite recent and it is ours - hence of most relevance to us - and we were massive in the imperial exploitation space, with correspondingly deep legacy. I think we tend to twist and strain to avoid admitting that the legacy is overwhelmingly negative on the people and places colonized.
Nonsense. It's a weird kind of English exceptionalism
Yes, lots of countries built empires, but ours was exceptionally evil!
About two centuries before the British took India, the racist supremacist Muslim Mughals took India, and built pyramids out of skulls. The Mughals were far far worse than the British. By some estimates they killed 40-80 million Indians. Others go higher
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
I've just finished reading Marc Morris The Anglo Saxons: History of the beginnings of England.
I was shocked to read that huge numbers of English were shipped off by the Vikings via eastern european intermediaries to Middle East slave markets in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Vast numbers.
I demand reparations from Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
Norway can pay in gas if it wants.
Donald Trump has tried this for his taxes. So far it doesn’t seem to be working.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
Emulate our ancestors' virtues, and avoid their vices. That's all we can do.
But emulate and avoid often becomes lionise and ignore.
All nations lionise their great military leaders. That's just a fact of life. And, that's as true of non-Europeans as it is of Europeans. But, gradually, the view has taken hold that right of conquest is not a good basis upon which to found one's rule.
Yes. But I meant more generally about our colonialism. I realize we aren't unique in having such a history but it's quite recent and it is ours - hence of most relevance to us - and we were massive in the imperial exploitation space, with correspondingly deep legacy. I think we tend to twist and strain to avoid admitting that the legacy is overwhelmingly negative on the people and places colonized.
That depends on the people and places. A comparative handful of British (or other Europeans) could only have governed foreign places had a much larger number of locals considered that there was something to be gained by it. And that was frequently because they found the local brands of imperialism less appealing.
1) It wasn't until the 1970s we joined the EU, and until the 00s there wasn't a massive imbalance in the wealth of countries with freedom of movement. 2) Immigration (especially from the third world) grows exponentially. Each immigrant generates more immigrants as potential immigrants have mpre contacts in the host country. 3) Immigrants need a certain amount of resource to get started. Back in the 50s, much of the world was simply too poor to move.
Yes. In the days of the Empire, hundreds of millions of people from the colonies had the legal right to reside in the UK, but couldn't afford to pay the fare. Quite a substantial proportion of immigrants from the colonies came as stowaways.
And whilst I know a lot of people will vehemently disagree with me I would contend that Britain was and is a better place for those stowaways (or however else they got here)
Perhaps so, but there is an upper limit on the foreign born population above which the country ceases to have a sense of national community and solidarity. You end up feeling like Dubai or Manhattan or central London, where everyone is packed in and says they like the dynamism, but they almost all have social isolation and rates of depression/anxiety rocket.
Of course the upper limit is fuzzy depending on how quickly the immigrants integrate, which is largely a function of education and proximity of their culture of origin.
Indeed so what we should be doing is not concentrating on how many are arriving but on our abilities to integrate them. Look at a country like Norway which has a massively successful system for integrating immigrants. They have a much larger number of migrants in proportion to their population settling each year (equivalent to around 1% of their population every year) and yet have few of the issues or antipathy that we have in the UK.
Or you can do an "all of the above" approach. Keep a close eye on levels of integration and immediately limit immigration for a few years when tensions get so high. Observe integration levels by country of origin group (e.g. clustering in residence, intermarriage rates, adoption of democratic values) and filter immigration to those that are already integrated. Within national groups, filter towards those most likely to integrate (high education, religiously secular).
Yep I can see the point with that, although I am more in favour of immigration than others arguing here and think Norway shows that you don't have to do that if you have a strong enough integrationist policy. The trouble is we don't even start to try to do that. We work from a policy of immigration being bad and do nothing to encourage or facilitate integration. We set ourselves up to fail.
But this is just another chapter in the Sanders of the River self aggrandisement narrative. First we enslave millions of them, yay us! Then we stop enslaving them, Wilberforce, west Africa squadron, yay us!!! Then we welcome and integrate them as immigrants, yay us * 3!!!! And let them drive buses! Whereas unreconstructed racists like me think west Africans are probably best left in West Africa in the first place, unless they have a voluntary wanderlust.
I think there are many things we would all do differently, if we could travel back five hundred years back in time. But, we are where we are.
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Sure we can't unwind the past, but we do have a duty to be honest about it.
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
I like stories set in more casually brutal periods or settings in particular to see how the authors decide to make the protagonist (if there is a lead figure) likeable.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's a narrow line. You have to make them sufficiently decent, in modern eyes, to be sympathetic, without tipping them over into having completely unrealistic attitudes for their time and place.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
I've just finished reading Marc Morris The Anglo Saxons: History of the beginnings of England.
I was shocked to read that huge numbers of English were shipped off by the Vikings via eastern european intermediaries to Middle East slave markets in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Vast numbers.
Iceland has a significant amount of Irish genetic heritage, purely down to Vikings shopping Irish (women, mainly) off there as slaves.
Comments
You should really be a bit more precise in your freeform bullshitting.
Though voters in South Carolina have elected a Black Republican as US Senator. And have no trouble imagining that Louisiana could elect a Black senator or governor, most likely Republican but possibly Democratic.
Republicans have some interesting candidates of color up & down the ballot in 2022 midterms, including some who were/are being defeated, but ran good races.
They have gone up by 400 in 5 years - yes indeed doubling. Meanwhile the number in the England and Wales was 125,000. And you think that supports your viewpoint?? You are deluded.
Maybe only now are the Norwegian police starting to become as Woke as our police though still far from ours
Should our ancestors have settled the Americas? Or Australia or New Zealand?
Well, it honestly doesn't matter now. It happened. GM Fraser put it best "When frightened, selfish, men, that is, the majority of humanity, meet in the wilderness, the weakest go under."
Just correcting Robert’s uncharacteristic mistake.
But have a look at this.
https://www.met.police.uk/sd/stats-and-data/met/year-end-crime-statistics-20-21/
I can only conclude that you must have a lot of East End gangster families in the Epping Tory Party if you think it is "hate" to be prosecuted for arson, speeding, burgary, theft etc.
Edit: which, for the avoidance iof doubt, is a nonsense conclusion - from your nonsense premise.
It's a long time since the Kray Twins wouldn't have turned bad if only they had moved to Romford.
As of now number of ballots counted = 2.5 million, estimated remaining = 462k, of which 216k are in King.
Two major statewide races already decided, with Democrats Patty Murray re-elected US Senator with 56.6%, and Steve Hobbs confirmed as WA Secretary of State.
For US House, nine of ten incumbents running for re-election re-elected handily: six Democrats, including top GOP target Kim Schrier; and two Republicans, including Dan Newhouse who voted to impeach Trump after attack on US Capitol.
Lone undecided US House seat is CD03 where another Republican incumbent was defeated in primary after voting for Trump impeachment, but where Democrat is currently leading MAGA0-maniac Republican.
Clark County, which is about 60% of the district, is counting today, and scheduled to report in about two & a half hours.
Add Mr Choudhury.
SNP have Mr Yousaf and Ms Stewart too. And the Tories have Dr Gulhane and Ms Gosal. Not sure about the LDs and the Greens - the former at least are too statistically small a sample anyway.
Even though I should have known it, I can avoid embarrassment by being 15 years younger than Just One Look in its earliest form
I'm very glad you liked the Bonnie Raitt live recording. I've listened to it more than anything else since I found it. It's cool how well this ginger bird has utterly mastered the Blues by the age of twenty-one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO7zkHKKPeU
They are also part of what little bedrock there is, for workers in massive Las Vegas hospitality industry, and thus the Nevada middle class.
And yes, 5k is a big number under the circumstances.
Other side does get to chase sigs & help cure ballots also, but not sure what kind of organization they can deploy?
This article from Dominic Sandbrook is really quite amusing on the subject. The Vikings were pretty awful, but in the popular imagination, they all looked like Henry Cavill, and Freya Allan, had marvellous sex, and loads of booze, and split the skulls of anyone who looked at them crossways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrSK-0-MQ8s
oh and I saw Bonnie supporting Paul Simon at Hyde Park a few years ago.
Same has now happened to the Dems, a hardcore Bernie supporter won the state chair and the defeated Harry Reid machine have setup a parallel organisation.
Culinary Workers have gone with the new organisation.
He was Taoiseach, is now Tánaiste in grand coalition government under power sharing arrangement that will again make him Taoiseach (unless the government falls or something) next month.
https://twitter.com/s_golonka/status/1591545155345338368?s=20&t=EtQ6-zjrgv93Fx3fxFoSkA
What's surprised me so far is how reasoned it is, even for its time. Race is barely mentioned at all - except for the word "natives" - and its description of its subjects largely focused on religious tensions.
Its central argument is that Britain owes a debt to India and a duty as a ruler, and the argument that "what was won by the sword must be kept by the sword" is false and wicked; Britain cannot be indifferent to its Indian subjects, and it cannot let the experience of the recent mutiny blot out the debt it owes to them to fix its judicial system, land tenure system, tariffs and currency. If it does not, Britain does not deserve to retain its role. And it appeals to Parliament to do this.
It's clear that the author's deep Christianity plays a strong part in his views. But I doubt he was a lone voice, and this is quite unlike how debate would be conducted (if at all) in nations like China or Russia at the time.
> Clark County, Nevada named for copper baron & Montana US Senator William Clark
> Clark County, Washington named for co-leader of the Lewis & Clark Expedition
To make things more confusing, county seat of Clark Co. WA = Vancouver, WA. A town which objected vociferously but ineffectively when it's name (or rather that of British admiral) was hijacked (or liberated depending on point of view) by Vancouver, BC.
Vancouver, WA is also site of historic Hudson Bay Company > US Army Fort Vancouver on beautify setting above the truly mighty Columbia River.
Generals of the Army (highest rank) who spent quality time at Fort Vancouver = Ulysses S. Grant and George C. Marshall.
Do they make them an improbably modern minded figure who was able to maintain such virtues through such times without consequence? Do they make them rigid and harsh in our eyes on some issues like punishment of sinners or slaughtering the enemy, but make sure they don't cross certain lines like raping (or even allowing soldiers under the command to do so)? Do you go full anti-hero or villain protagonist route?
Think someone like Uhtred from The Last Kingdom series - a violent, disloyal figure, and an outright murderer of unarmed people even in his own narrative, but with sufficient honour, humour and other values to make them still likeable.
It's remarkably arrogant and, ironically, very ignorant.
And I'm green. With envy
They did a great Tiny Desk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRipadkd6wk
That might take up to 24 months to pay out and we're living in a world of 10-11% inflation pa.
For just over 3% return that you have to wait 2 years for you'd be better simply putting it in a cash ISA, which effectively has zero risk.
I read some books by Giles Kristiansen about Vikings, who do Viking things, and then there's one bit where they capture the harem of a Muslim emir, and spend the winter having sex with them. Then they sell them into slavery! And in the meantime, they rape and hang a bunch of nuns, for sport. By that point, I did not care what happened to them,
Cornwell, I think, gets it basically right. Uhtred and Sharpe are both brutal men, but they don't cross lines that alienate modern readers.
I think to modern readers, rape and chattel slavery are the moral event thresholds. Uhtred actually does take slaves at one point, but later gets sold into slavery, and realises how awful it is. Viking slavery was about as bad as it got.
I was shocked to read that huge numbers of English were shipped off by the Vikings via eastern european intermediaries to Middle East slave markets in the 9th and 10th centuries.
Vast numbers.
2018 Wednesday Morning: Dems are total failures.
2018 Sunday: Oops, largest Dem gain of seats in quarter of a century, quick need to rewrite all those op-eds about how the Dems are out of touch with ordinary Americans.
"New House math:
Dem called/likely (212), incl. #AKAL, #CA09, #CA21, #CA47, #CA49, #CO08, #ME02, #OR06
GOP called/likely (217): incl. #CA03, #CA27, #CA45, #CO03, #NY22, #OR05
Toss Ups (6): #AZ01, #AZ06, #CA13, #CA22, #CA41, #WA03
Dems need to run the table on Toss Ups for 218."
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1591432128700596224?s=20&t=zZE_-w2zmdoP3qSPIceI-g
"It's possible #CA13 (Modesto) and #WA03 (Vancouver) lean slightly towards Ds at this point, and #CA41 (Riverside County) might lean ever-so-slightly towards Rs.
But #AZ01 (Scottsdale), #AZ06 (Tucson) and #CA22 (Bakersfield) are the toughest to divine at the moment."
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1591432128700596224?s=20&t=ekSyp9w8JD3CPiIzeTh-Nw
Yes, lots of countries built empires, but ours was exceptionally evil!
About two centuries before the British took India, the racist supremacist Muslim Mughals took India, and built pyramids out of skulls. The Mughals were far far worse than the British. By some estimates they killed 40-80 million Indians. Others go higher
Interesting fact: Don't Stop Believin' by Journey wasn't originally a hit in the UK when first released in 1981/82.
Currently being played by Gary Davies on his Radio 2 show.